[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Because people are childish. As it has already been established, the boundaries and dates for the SAWT are set by the licenses they are given to hold the tournament. SAWT could have chosen to apply additional boundaries to not include that section but lets face it(and this forum is an example), Anglers are a bunch of whiny babies. Half of the SAWT anglers would complain and whine that "but if half-wit angler-Joe is allowed to fish that section why cannot the tournament anglers who likely have superior fish handling skills". IF you dont think this would happen, then you need to wake up. It's like anything in the world, if the saw says you should be allowed to do something then there will be a group of people who think it is their legal right to do so and if a third party says no then that group will resist. If people were allowed to carry guns, they would.

It's not so simple as the SAWT saying "we are closing this section". especially when competition, money, and men are involved. There was no conflict of interest with the President of WU and SAWT being the same guy. If anything it worked to the best interests of both groups by incorporating them together. Providing both groups with invaluable information about the sport and the fish that we all enjoy.

PS. The people who know the answers are smart enough to not get involved in this kind of thing. I mean come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the clashing mentalities and superegos floating around here creates the grounds for a legitimate discussion about as stable as boiling water. That is why those who have the answers have pretty much said no more than tell people where to go for meetings that will provide some information.

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

lol. horse, I actually never claimed or stated any facts. I have actually deliberately waned on both sides because my argument is that we DO NOT KNOW the facts. So as far hiding with humor, I'm not hiding anything. I'm also not claiming one side or the other. just playing devils advocate to the purpose of explaining we do not know all the facts.

A final note, I am not worried about my credibility with you. Your judging me based on facts when I never claimed to offer any facts at all. So I am not sure if you misread or mis interpreted me.

As stated several times before. the things I discuss on here are not necisarily my opinions on the matter. I feel I am smarter than to actually explicitly state my opinions. I am only offering suggestions of what others might not have considered when discussing these topics.

also, I like how you actually said I am flaming the average joe even after I stated that I was exaggerating the example for dramatic effect.

try reading you statements again there is "no this could be" or "this might be" or any other hint of anything but a factual statement.